American Airlines looks to be an equal opportunity tablet buyer. At the same time they're putting iPads in the cockpit, they're putting Samsung's tablets in First Class.
That's a funny part. Samsung did everything, even customize their tablet, to have AA accept them. Sound like they aren't too confident in their own product.
You don't own, nor have used an iPad. That is readily apparent by your comments, which by the way remind me of a little kids. Please specify which airline and route you fly, so that I can ensure I don't fly on it.
He could be a new magicj. Rememeber "I'm an iOS dev"?
You are completely contradicting yourself. You aren't happy that an iPad is replacing your EFB but you think they should use a cheaper tablet as it's just a PDF reader? You seem to be criticising the choice of an iPad as it's not of the same quality as an EFB then suggesting something cheaper even than an iPad be used.
Yes, that's also my impression reading his posts but hey, he's young. He could not be that mature after all. (being anti-iPad (Apple) and all that for no reason.) I'm glad he flied military, not civilian. Doesn't really want any fanboyist pilot (in this case, Android) on my flight.
Xanthia01 sounds like one of those guys that went apoplectic when they first started introducing fly-by-wire systems...or even avionics in general.
I'm quite certain that the airlines are not going to introduce anything that would put their planes, crew or passengers at any serious risk. They know that the pay-out on that liability would quickly and easily exceed the $1M/year they're saving. And that's assuming they are simple, base, inhuman monsters who care only about their profits and nothing at all about the people in their planes.
I'd feel safer if they actually used a real Electronic Flight Bag.
Other than that this app isn't that big a deal. It's just a giant PDF reader. It'll be on Android soon enough.
Personally, when I used to fly, I felt safer carrying a cut out of my terminal map and my FLIPs. There's a reason pilots are still trained to do diversions with a paper chart on backup (mechanical) instruments.
Based on published data, the tests for the iPad did not simply include software testing (though that was part of it), there were also environmental tests dealing with decompression effects, temperature as well as 500+ hours of flight testing and impact of cockpit workload in result of software crashes. Based on the testing, it sounds like Level E software though a slight increase in cockpit workload if the iPad crashed durring take-off or landing might put it to Level D but I doubt the System Safety Analysis would support that.
So the question is, what tablet of the dozens will be chosen to go through environmental and flight testing testing? Will be on the market for more than 6 months before testing needs repeated? The rapid churn of Android hardware and strong Enterprise management features will keep Android out of the cockpit for at least another 18 months.
Herein lies the problem!!! "Pretty reliable" .......that is not good enough! That is my whole point.
I guess you're capable of landing the plane "pretty much most of the time" too!
In aviation, you've got to get it right, first time, all the time. Perfection. "Pretty reliable" is not good enough!
It all comes down to the System Safety Assessment. You put a software safety level on it of A, B, C, D or E. My guess is the iPad with Jeppesen software is Level E or D but that would be a question best posed to Jeppesen. The hardware will have to go through environmental testing and include things like decompression, temperature and EMI.
Based on published results, the system did not crash once in 250 flight test runs. Trust me, this is actually pretty damn good having been developing Level A and B software for flight avionics for 15 years.
You'd be surprised at the avionics reliability standards.
Having worked on software and systems from the C-17, B-1B, 787 and several other comercial/private planes from BA to Embraer, I will guantee you the reliability is achieved more from backups than anything else. The issue is the volumes of the electronics are so low that reliability (typically at the design level) takes several years to actually get high.
For the first 3-10 years, there are almost always gremlins lurking in hardware, software, systems or weird timing interactions between the 3 parts. At sometime between 7-10 years after first flight, the systems reliability is really high.
Based on published data, the tests for the iPad did not simply include software testing (though that was part of it), there were also environmental tests dealing with decompression effects, temperature as well as 500+ hours of flight testing and impact of cockpit workload in result of software crashes. Based on the testing, it sounds like Level E software though a slight increase in cockpit workload if the iPad crashed durring take-off or landing might put it to Level D but I doubt the System Safety Analysis would support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
It all comes down to the System Safety Assessment. You put a software safety level on it of A, B, C, D or E. My guess is the iPad with Jeppesen software is Level E or D but that would be a question best posed to Jeppesen. The hardware will have to go through environmental testing and include things like decompression, temperature and EMI.
Based on published results, the system did not crash once in 250 flight test runs. Trust me, this is actually pretty damn good having been developing Level A and B software for flight avionics for 15 years.
That allays a lot of my fears. I was under the impression, they just certified the app and did some rough checks on the hardware. Good to know that it was actually tested as a system. Do you know where I can find the test results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
So the question is, what tablet of the dozens will be chosen to go through environmental and flight testing testing? Will be on the market for more than 6 months before testing needs repeated? The rapid churn of Android hardware and strong Enterprise management features will keep Android out of the cockpit for at least another 18 months.
I could see somebody taking the OS and using it to develop a stand alone EFB, and still have it come out cheaper than the iPad. Nobody says that it has to be a COTS Android tablet. That said, I concur with your sentiment that it would be a while before we see an Android tablet in the cockpit. Especially if there's hardware testing involved as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Having worked on software and systems from the C-17, B-1B, 787 and several other comercial/private planes from BA to Embraer, I will guantee you the reliability is achieved more from backups than anything else. The issue is the volumes of the electronics are so low that reliability (typically at the design level) takes several years to actually get high.
For the first 3-10 years, there are almost always gremlins lurking in hardware, software, systems or weird timing interactions between the 3 parts. At sometime between 7-10 years after first flight, the systems reliability is really high.
My point was that there's no way somebody could suggest that avionics on an airplane are less reliable than an iPad. That was Apple ]['s suggestion. And you know as well as I do that the design standard and design methodolgies are completely different. That's not to say, Apple doesn't build amazing (and sturdy) products. But the design drivers for a consumer device are nowhere the same as something intended for use inside the flight deck.
The real question is, if there truly is demand for flight charts delivered electronically then why is there not a dedicated device for them?
It could be built into the cockpit and powered (with battery backup) from the plane itself and have a much larger and higher resolution screen than the frankly archaic 10" 1024x768 display in iPad.
I'd worry about any airline that is so quick to jump on a consumer technology for an environment that needs the most reliable of technology. I've seen enough apps on iOS deciding to quit themselves to know that stability isn't its strongest point.
Airplanes (even single engine Cessna) does have flight charts built-in the cockpit navigation systems. However, it is an FAA requirement to carry a backup not part of the airplane system itself just in case. Furthermore, there are dedicated electronic flight charts devices already but usually run Windows and cost hundreds more than the iPad.
Yes, that's also my impression reading his posts but hey, he's young. He could not be that mature after all. (being anti-iPad (Apple) and all that for no reason.) I'm glad he flied military, not civilian. Doesn't really want any fanboyist pilot (in this case, Android) on my flight.
1) WTF is your problem? I'm not anti-Apple. I own several Apple products.
2) I said there was no room for fanboyism on the flight deck. Apple or otherwise. Read my posts in this thread, I never once suggested an Android tablet as an alternative. I suggested paper and pencil instead.
My concern with technology like this is that trendy tech always has a nasty habit of finding its way into the airplane without proper testing or due consideration to the limits for which it was certified. What I loathe as a former pilot and as an engineer, is the guy who comes in thinking his iPad is cool and now decides it'll automatically work well in the cockpit because it works great for him at home.
I like to see reasonable arguments and data where safety is involved. At least Steven N. and John Burdick provided that. You're just an asswipe intent on slandering someone because they questioned the tech brand you're loyal to.
Airplanes (even single engine Cessna) does have flight charts built-in the cockpit navigation systems. However, it is an FAA requirement to carry a backup not part of the airplane system itself just in case. Furthermore, there are dedicated electronic flight charts devices already but usually run Windows and cost hundreds more than the iPad.
They also weigh a lot more. That's one of the reasons the iPad started gaining traction to begin with. Some guys were also putting their FLIPs on Kindles before.
That's a funny part. Samsung did everything, even customize their tablet, to have AA accept them. Sound like they aren't too confident in their own product.
No. That sounds to me that AA got a far more customized solution. I believe that AA already uses iPads in their First Class lounges. So they must have had a good reason (or several) to go for a different tablet for in-flight IFE. I suspect cost was one. Customization another. And perhaps the screen orientation too. It's a nicer experience watching movies on a 10 inch Galaxy Tab than an iPad, simply because the letterboxing is a lot less. For reading and games, etc. the iPad wins out.
The ability to play with the OS, will probably drive more airlines to use Android for IFE.
That's not to say the iPad is bad. it's just that airlines probably get more flexibility with an Android system. And that matters to airlines who want to push their brand.
So what's the savings here then if they are keeping the docs onboard? Is this basically a cheaper alternative to an EFB? I guess it's certified Class 1, so it's an alright replacement for that. When you guys operate ULH, do you guys keep four sets of pubs though? And would this mean 3 ipads and one set of pubs? I'm just wondering what the savings are here.
Safety wise, I just hope they don't ever get rid of the pubs completely. That would be pretty worrisome I would think.
And none of this is to slight the iPad. It's a superb device.
All pilots would have an iPad. There would only be one set of pubs in each cockpit versus four now; basically to act as a backup. The cost savings come in weight saved (less gas used), plus you don't have to purchase three sets or pay to have them updated (we use ship sets, which means that the pubs stay in the cockpit and are updated by Jeppesen every two weeks).
I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
Wow. I want to live in whatever parallel universe you're living in!
Quote:
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
What airline please. I don't want to fly on airline with a freak-out pilot.
Exactly. As a passenger, I want a pilot who can stay calm and in control even in the midst of a worst-case-scenario (hydraulic failure, engine fell off, instruments went blank, etc.) and look for a way to get me safely to the ground—not someone who's going to go into "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" mode because his/her iPad EFB crashed. It's fine to have high standards of reliability, or to even wish for flawless perfection (don't we all want that?), but someone who needs "predictable perfection" in order to do their job is not someone I'm willing to trust with my life.
ammmm - my response is that I don't want to be waiting for my iPad to load the right map or rescale the graphics as I try to find an appropriate place to land!!
And actually - minor correction - what you are referring to was an A320.
Wait, what does twin engine failure due to bird strike have to do with aircraft type? Are you suggesting that A330 wouldn't possibly have suffered that problem and that scenario is only valid on a A320?
The real question is, if there truly is demand for flight charts delivered electronically then why is there not a dedicated device for them?
It could be built into the cockpit and powered (with battery backup) from the plane itself and have a much larger and higher resolution screen than the frankly archaic 10" 1024x768 display in iPad.
I'd worry about any airline that is so quick to jump on a consumer technology for an environment that needs the most reliable of technology. I've seen enough apps on iOS deciding to quit themselves to know that stability isn't its strongest point.
Because anytime you go from a portable device to a built in FAA approved and certified instrument you go from a $500 device to a $15,000 device.
I'd be pissed if I worked for American and they gave me an iPad instead of a certified EFB. WTF?
And what I really don't get is, why an iPad? That app is essentially a collection of PDFs. If they're going to hand out PDF readers, why not just give me people cheaper tablets.
Your argument wouldn't make much weight if that said iPad is used solely for the purpose of navigating or as an aid in navigating a plane. Worrying only apply if pilots use them for entertainment purposes as well. I don't think that is warranted.
Wait, what does twin engine failure due to bird strike have to do with aircraft type? Are you suggesting that A330 wouldn't possibly have suffered that problem and that scenario is only valid on a A320?
Comments
American Airlines looks to be an equal opportunity tablet buyer. At the same time they're putting iPads in the cockpit, they're putting Samsung's tablets in First Class.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/...s-galaxy-tabs/
That's a funny part. Samsung did everything, even customize their tablet, to have AA accept them. Sound like they aren't too confident in their own product.
You don't own, nor have used an iPad. That is readily apparent by your comments, which by the way remind me of a little kids. Please specify which airline and route you fly, so that I can ensure I don't fly on it.
He could be a new magicj. Rememeber "I'm an iOS dev"?
You are completely contradicting yourself. You aren't happy that an iPad is replacing your EFB but you think they should use a cheaper tablet as it's just a PDF reader? You seem to be criticising the choice of an iPad as it's not of the same quality as an EFB then suggesting something cheaper even than an iPad be used.
Yes, that's also my impression reading his posts but hey, he's young. He could not be that mature after all. (being anti-iPad (Apple) and all that for no reason.) I'm glad he flied military, not civilian. Doesn't really want any fanboyist pilot (in this case, Android) on my flight.
I'm quite certain that the airlines are not going to introduce anything that would put their planes, crew or passengers at any serious risk. They know that the pay-out on that liability would quickly and easily exceed the $1M/year they're saving. And that's assuming they are simple, base, inhuman monsters who care only about their profits and nothing at all about the people in their planes.
I'd feel safer if they actually used a real Electronic Flight Bag.
Other than that this app isn't that big a deal. It's just a giant PDF reader. It'll be on Android soon enough.
Personally, when I used to fly, I felt safer carrying a cut out of my terminal map and my FLIPs. There's a reason pilots are still trained to do diversions with a paper chart on backup (mechanical) instruments.
Based on published data, the tests for the iPad did not simply include software testing (though that was part of it), there were also environmental tests dealing with decompression effects, temperature as well as 500+ hours of flight testing and impact of cockpit workload in result of software crashes. Based on the testing, it sounds like Level E software though a slight increase in cockpit workload if the iPad crashed durring take-off or landing might put it to Level D but I doubt the System Safety Analysis would support that.
So the question is, what tablet of the dozens will be chosen to go through environmental and flight testing testing? Will be on the market for more than 6 months before testing needs repeated? The rapid churn of Android hardware and strong Enterprise management features will keep Android out of the cockpit for at least another 18 months.
Herein lies the problem!!! "Pretty reliable" .......that is not good enough! That is my whole point.
I guess you're capable of landing the plane "pretty much most of the time" too!
In aviation, you've got to get it right, first time, all the time. Perfection. "Pretty reliable" is not good enough!
It all comes down to the System Safety Assessment. You put a software safety level on it of A, B, C, D or E. My guess is the iPad with Jeppesen software is Level E or D but that would be a question best posed to Jeppesen. The hardware will have to go through environmental testing and include things like decompression, temperature and EMI.
Based on published results, the system did not crash once in 250 flight test runs. Trust me, this is actually pretty damn good having been developing Level A and B software for flight avionics for 15 years.
You'd be surprised at the avionics reliability standards.
Having worked on software and systems from the C-17, B-1B, 787 and several other comercial/private planes from BA to Embraer, I will guantee you the reliability is achieved more from backups than anything else. The issue is the volumes of the electronics are so low that reliability (typically at the design level) takes several years to actually get high.
For the first 3-10 years, there are almost always gremlins lurking in hardware, software, systems or weird timing interactions between the 3 parts. At sometime between 7-10 years after first flight, the systems reliability is really high.
Based on published data, the tests for the iPad did not simply include software testing (though that was part of it), there were also environmental tests dealing with decompression effects, temperature as well as 500+ hours of flight testing and impact of cockpit workload in result of software crashes. Based on the testing, it sounds like Level E software though a slight increase in cockpit workload if the iPad crashed durring take-off or landing might put it to Level D but I doubt the System Safety Analysis would support that.
It all comes down to the System Safety Assessment. You put a software safety level on it of A, B, C, D or E. My guess is the iPad with Jeppesen software is Level E or D but that would be a question best posed to Jeppesen. The hardware will have to go through environmental testing and include things like decompression, temperature and EMI.
Based on published results, the system did not crash once in 250 flight test runs. Trust me, this is actually pretty damn good having been developing Level A and B software for flight avionics for 15 years.
That allays a lot of my fears. I was under the impression, they just certified the app and did some rough checks on the hardware. Good to know that it was actually tested as a system. Do you know where I can find the test results?
So the question is, what tablet of the dozens will be chosen to go through environmental and flight testing testing? Will be on the market for more than 6 months before testing needs repeated? The rapid churn of Android hardware and strong Enterprise management features will keep Android out of the cockpit for at least another 18 months.
I could see somebody taking the OS and using it to develop a stand alone EFB, and still have it come out cheaper than the iPad. Nobody says that it has to be a COTS Android tablet. That said, I concur with your sentiment that it would be a while before we see an Android tablet in the cockpit. Especially if there's hardware testing involved as well.
Having worked on software and systems from the C-17, B-1B, 787 and several other comercial/private planes from BA to Embraer, I will guantee you the reliability is achieved more from backups than anything else. The issue is the volumes of the electronics are so low that reliability (typically at the design level) takes several years to actually get high.
For the first 3-10 years, there are almost always gremlins lurking in hardware, software, systems or weird timing interactions between the 3 parts. At sometime between 7-10 years after first flight, the systems reliability is really high.
My point was that there's no way somebody could suggest that avionics on an airplane are less reliable than an iPad. That was Apple ]['s suggestion. And you know as well as I do that the design standard and design methodolgies are completely different. That's not to say, Apple doesn't build amazing (and sturdy) products. But the design drivers for a consumer device are nowhere the same as something intended for use inside the flight deck.
The real question is, if there truly is demand for flight charts delivered electronically then why is there not a dedicated device for them?
It could be built into the cockpit and powered (with battery backup) from the plane itself and have a much larger and higher resolution screen than the frankly archaic 10" 1024x768 display in iPad.
I'd worry about any airline that is so quick to jump on a consumer technology for an environment that needs the most reliable of technology. I've seen enough apps on iOS deciding to quit themselves to know that stability isn't its strongest point.
Airplanes (even single engine Cessna) does have flight charts built-in the cockpit navigation systems. However, it is an FAA requirement to carry a backup not part of the airplane system itself just in case. Furthermore, there are dedicated electronic flight charts devices already but usually run Windows and cost hundreds more than the iPad.
Yes, that's also my impression reading his posts but hey, he's young. He could not be that mature after all. (being anti-iPad (Apple) and all that for no reason.) I'm glad he flied military, not civilian. Doesn't really want any fanboyist pilot (in this case, Android) on my flight.
1) WTF is your problem? I'm not anti-Apple. I own several Apple products.
2) I said there was no room for fanboyism on the flight deck. Apple or otherwise. Read my posts in this thread, I never once suggested an Android tablet as an alternative. I suggested paper and pencil instead.
My concern with technology like this is that trendy tech always has a nasty habit of finding its way into the airplane without proper testing or due consideration to the limits for which it was certified. What I loathe as a former pilot and as an engineer, is the guy who comes in thinking his iPad is cool and now decides it'll automatically work well in the cockpit because it works great for him at home.
I like to see reasonable arguments and data where safety is involved. At least Steven N. and John Burdick provided that. You're just an asswipe intent on slandering someone because they questioned the tech brand you're loyal to.
Airplanes (even single engine Cessna) does have flight charts built-in the cockpit navigation systems. However, it is an FAA requirement to carry a backup not part of the airplane system itself just in case. Furthermore, there are dedicated electronic flight charts devices already but usually run Windows and cost hundreds more than the iPad.
They also weigh a lot more. That's one of the reasons the iPad started gaining traction to begin with. Some guys were also putting their FLIPs on Kindles before.
That's a funny part. Samsung did everything, even customize their tablet, to have AA accept them. Sound like they aren't too confident in their own product.
No. That sounds to me that AA got a far more customized solution. I believe that AA already uses iPads in their First Class lounges. So they must have had a good reason (or several) to go for a different tablet for in-flight IFE. I suspect cost was one. Customization another. And perhaps the screen orientation too. It's a nicer experience watching movies on a 10 inch Galaxy Tab than an iPad, simply because the letterboxing is a lot less. For reading and games, etc. the iPad wins out.
The ability to play with the OS, will probably drive more airlines to use Android for IFE.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ru...onic-eyes.html
That's not to say the iPad is bad. it's just that airlines probably get more flexibility with an Android system. And that matters to airlines who want to push their brand.
Thanks. Finally somebody who gets my concerns.
So what's the savings here then if they are keeping the docs onboard? Is this basically a cheaper alternative to an EFB? I guess it's certified Class 1, so it's an alright replacement for that. When you guys operate ULH, do you guys keep four sets of pubs though? And would this mean 3 ipads and one set of pubs? I'm just wondering what the savings are here.
Safety wise, I just hope they don't ever get rid of the pubs completely. That would be pretty worrisome I would think.
And none of this is to slight the iPad. It's a superb device.
All pilots would have an iPad. There would only be one set of pubs in each cockpit versus four now; basically to act as a backup. The cost savings come in weight saved (less gas used), plus you don't have to purchase three sets or pay to have them updated (we use ship sets, which means that the pubs stay in the cockpit and are updated by Jeppesen every two weeks).
I'm used to everyONE and everyTHING doing exactly as it should, at exactly the right time.
Wow. I want to live in whatever parallel universe you're living in!
I don't need the distraction of consumer electronics on the flight deck. I need predictable perfection!
What airline please. I don't want to fly on airline with a freak-out pilot.
Exactly. As a passenger, I want a pilot who can stay calm and in control even in the midst of a worst-case-scenario (hydraulic failure, engine fell off, instruments went blank, etc.) and look for a way to get me safely to the ground—not someone who's going to go into "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" mode because his/her iPad EFB crashed. It's fine to have high standards of reliability, or to even wish for flawless perfection (don't we all want that?), but someone who needs "predictable perfection" in order to do their job is not someone I'm willing to trust with my life.
ammmm - my response is that I don't want to be waiting for my iPad to load the right map or rescale the graphics as I try to find an appropriate place to land!!
And actually - minor correction - what you are referring to was an A320.
Wait, what does twin engine failure due to bird strike have to do with aircraft type? Are you suggesting that A330 wouldn't possibly have suffered that problem and that scenario is only valid on a A320?
The real question is, if there truly is demand for flight charts delivered electronically then why is there not a dedicated device for them?
It could be built into the cockpit and powered (with battery backup) from the plane itself and have a much larger and higher resolution screen than the frankly archaic 10" 1024x768 display in iPad.
I'd worry about any airline that is so quick to jump on a consumer technology for an environment that needs the most reliable of technology. I've seen enough apps on iOS deciding to quit themselves to know that stability isn't its strongest point.
Because anytime you go from a portable device to a built in FAA approved and certified instrument you go from a $500 device to a $15,000 device.
+1
I don't care what the fanboys say.
I'd be pissed if I worked for American and they gave me an iPad instead of a certified EFB. WTF?
And what I really don't get is, why an iPad? That app is essentially a collection of PDFs. If they're going to hand out PDF readers, why not just give me people cheaper tablets.
Your argument wouldn't make much weight if that said iPad is used solely for the purpose of navigating or as an aid in navigating a plane. Worrying only apply if pilots use them for entertainment purposes as well. I don't think that is warranted.
Wait, what does twin engine failure due to bird strike have to do with aircraft type? Are you suggesting that A330 wouldn't possibly have suffered that problem and that scenario is only valid on a A320?
It was a reference to miracle on the Hudson.
In aviation, you've got to get it right, first time, all the time. Perfection. "Pretty reliable" is not good enough!
No pilot, no plane, and no flight is "perfect." Safe and legal is the norm.